If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 24-120 f4 samples
On 12/28/2010 4:16 PM, eNo wrote:
On Dec 28, 12:43 pm, wrote: On Dec 28, 12:35 pm, wrote: I've posted a few on my blog: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?tag=24-120 ~~~ eNohttp://esfotoclix.com Of what value are 2"x3" images as "samples" from a lens? P.S. Blogs are (hopefully) dead. Thanks for the positive outlook. You must lead a joy-filled existence. Actually, I keep praying that full resolution pixel peeping will soon die, but broke down and still posted some 100% crops to satisfy the peepers. FWIW, in my experience, 1024 wide web images give a very good indication of what the image will look like when printed up to 5x7 sizes, and a somewhat good indicator of quality up to 11x17... though I've never been able to convice the peers about the latter. You're a brave soul ENo, I wouldn't post my photos to the group even if they were as good as the one's you show. There is good news though, Rich is making a New Year's resolution to say something positive every five posts or so, even if he chokes on the effort. The bad news is he'll be compelled to be even more critical on the other four. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 24-120 f4 samples
On 12/28/2010 6:40 PM, Dave Cohen wrote:
On 12/28/2010 4:16 PM, eNo wrote: On Dec 28, 12:43 pm, wrote: On Dec 28, 12:35 pm, wrote: I've posted a few on my blog: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?tag=24-120 ~~~ eNohttp://esfotoclix.com Of what value are 2"x3" images as "samples" from a lens? P.S. Blogs are (hopefully) dead. Thanks for the positive outlook. You must lead a joy-filled existence. Actually, I keep praying that full resolution pixel peeping will soon die, but broke down and still posted some 100% crops to satisfy the peepers. FWIW, in my experience, 1024 wide web images give a very good indication of what the image will look like when printed up to 5x7 sizes, and a somewhat good indicator of quality up to 11x17... though I've never been able to convice the peers about the latter. You're a brave soul ENo, I wouldn't post my photos to the group even if they were as good as the one's you show. There is good news though, Rich is making a New Year's resolution to say something positive every five posts or so, even if he chokes on the effort. The bad news is he'll be compelled to be even more critical on the other four. I have a fairly think skin when it comes to comments from the pixel peepers. Post the work you like, either for comment, or to share. As others here have said, the important thing is whether YOU like the image. -- Peter |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 24-120 f4 samples
On 12/28/2010 10:21 PM, peter wrote:
On 12/28/2010 6:40 PM, Dave Cohen wrote: On 12/28/2010 4:16 PM, eNo wrote: On Dec 28, 12:43 pm, wrote: On Dec 28, 12:35 pm, wrote: I've posted a few on my blog: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?tag=24-120 ~~~ eNohttp://esfotoclix.com Of what value are 2"x3" images as "samples" from a lens? P.S. Blogs are (hopefully) dead. Thanks for the positive outlook. You must lead a joy-filled existence. Actually, I keep praying that full resolution pixel peeping will soon die, but broke down and still posted some 100% crops to satisfy the peepers. FWIW, in my experience, 1024 wide web images give a very good indication of what the image will look like when printed up to 5x7 sizes, and a somewhat good indicator of quality up to 11x17... though I've never been able to convice the peers about the latter. You're a brave soul ENo, I wouldn't post my photos to the group even if they were as good as the one's you show. There is good news though, Rich is making a New Year's resolution to say something positive every five posts or so, even if he chokes on the effort. The bad news is he'll be compelled to be even more critical on the other four. I have a fairly think skin when it comes to comments from the pixel peepers. Post the work you like, either for comment, or to share. As others here have said, the important thing is whether YOU like the image. Oops! that should have re3ad "....thick skin...." -- Peter |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 24-120 f4 samples
Dave Cohen wrote in -
september.org: On 12/28/2010 4:16 PM, eNo wrote: On Dec 28, 12:43 pm, wrote: On Dec 28, 12:35 pm, wrote: I've posted a few on my blog: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?tag=24-120 ~~~ eNohttp://esfotoclix.com Of what value are 2"x3" images as "samples" from a lens? P.S. Blogs are (hopefully) dead. Thanks for the positive outlook. You must lead a joy-filled existence. Actually, I keep praying that full resolution pixel peeping will soon die, but broke down and still posted some 100% crops to satisfy the peepers. FWIW, in my experience, 1024 wide web images give a very good indication of what the image will look like when printed up to 5x7 sizes, and a somewhat good indicator of quality up to 11x17... though I've never been able to convice the peers about the latter. You're a brave soul ENo, I wouldn't post my photos to the group even if they were as good as the one's you show. There is good news though, Rich is making a New Year's resolution to say something positive every five posts or so, even if he chokes on the effort. The bad news is he'll be compelled to be even more critical on the other four. You people really are sheep. The pictures posted told us NOTHING about the differences between the 24-120mm and the 16-85mm. The premise of posting them was nothing but another in an endless line of posts designed to drive TRAFFIC to someone's website or blog. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 24-120 f4 samples
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:52:12 -0500, peter
wrote: : On 12/28/2010 10:21 PM, peter wrote: : I have a fairly think skin when it comes to comments from the pixel : peepers. Post the work you like, either for comment, or to share. As : others here have said, the important thing is whether YOU like the image. : : Oops! that should have re3ad "....thick skin...." We just thought you were trying to have it both ways. ;^) Bob |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon 24-120 f4 samples
On 1/1/2011 11:07 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:52:12 -0500, wrote: : On 12/28/2010 10:21 PM, peter wrote: : I have a fairly think skin when it comes to comments from the pixel : peepers. Post the work you like, either for comment, or to share. As : others here have said, the important thing is whether YOU like the image. : : Oops! that should have re3ad "....thick skin...." We just thought you were trying to have it both ways. ;^) Bob Not always an invalid assumption. ;-) -- Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon 24-120 f4 samples | Paul Furman | Digital Photography | 0 | December 28th 10 09:05 PM |
Nikon D5000 videoclips samples | David Kilpatrick | Digital SLR Cameras | 11 | May 4th 09 02:21 AM |
Official Nikon D300 samples | frederick | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | September 14th 07 02:53 AM |
David taylor: can you post full 8MP samples from the Nikon 8400? | Bill Hilton | Digital Photography | 3 | December 11th 04 06:54 PM |
Nikon Coolpix 8800 review and samples | AWolf | Digital Photography | 14 | November 14th 04 02:52 PM |